Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Quantum Adaptive Sensing for Accelerated MRI

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adaptive QUBO-based k-space selection improves accelerated MRI reconstruction over static sampling, with a solver-agnostic formulation ready for quantum-annealing hardware.

desk verdict A serious but unproven adaptive-sampling claim: the integrated QUBO formulation is new and honestly reported, but the paper never isolates the adaptive term, so the central mechanism is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21737 v1 pith:6Z5L4ALK submitted 2026-07-23 cs.ET eess.IVeess.SPphysics.med-ph

Asmit Ganguly , Suprajit Dewanji , Chenyang Zhao , Danny J. J. Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ETeess.IVeess.SPphysics.med-ph
keywords adaptiveMRIsamplingcompressedsensingQUBOquantumannealingk-spaceCartesianphaseencodingSENSE-TVreconstructionvariable-densityPoisson-disc
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that accelerated MRI can be improved by choosing which k-space lines to measure adaptively, instead of using a fixed sampling pattern decided before the scan. It casts each batch of line selections as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem whose objective balances central k-space preference, signal energy from previously acquired lines, and spatial dispersion. In retrospective eight-coil three-dimensional simulations, this adaptive selection improved PSNR, SSIM, NMSE, and HFEN relative to static Cartesian strategies, including variable-density Poisson-disc sampling, at both 20% and 10% sampling. The same QUBO ran on a quantum-classical hybrid system and matched variable-density Poisson-disc when the candidate pool was reduced; the authors state clearly that this does not prove quantum advantage. The reason to care is that feedback-driven, optimization-based sampling could let scanners get more useful image content from each measured point, especially when sampling budgets are tight.

What carries the argument

The central object is a fixed-cardinality QUBO over binary variables that mark candidate k-space phase-encode lines as selected or not. Its linear coefficients encode three attractions: a Gaussian static central bias; an adaptive field obtained by log-compressing the L2 norm of previously acquired k-space lines, diffusing it with a Gaussian kernel, and suppressing it with a hyperbolic tangent; and an exploration bonus favoring un-sampled neighbors. The quadratic coefficients are an anisotropic, softened power-law repulsion between candidate lines, and a penalty term enforces exactly M selections per batch. A Markovian outer loop feeds measured signal energy from each completed batch into the

What would settle it

Run the same reconstruction pipeline on held-out multi-coil data from an anatomy or contrast not used in hyperparameter tuning, comparing the adaptive QUBO mask against variable-density Poisson-disc with equal solver budget and identical reconstruction settings; if the PSNR and SSIM differences shrink below the paper's reported margins, the adaptive field has likely overfit to the phantom family.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that casting sequential Cartesian phase-encode-line selection as a fixed-cardinality QUBO yields masks that reconstruct better than static heuristic masks. The QUBO combines a static attraction to the k-space center, an adaptive field built from log-compressed, smoothed L2 norms of already acquired k-space lines, pairwise repulsion that spreads samples, and a penalty that enforces an exact number of lines per batch. The authors report that on simulated eight-coil three-dimensional data with SENSE-TV reconstruction, the method improved PSNR, SSIM, NMSE, and HFEN relative to variable-density Poisson-disc and other baselines at 20% and 10% sampling, with larger gains at hig

Load-bearing premise

The whole adaptive feedback loop rests on the assumption that the log-compressed, smoothed L2 norm of previously acquired k-space lines predicts where additional samples will carry reconstruction information; if that proxy fails, the method's edge over a well-tuned static variable-density mask can disappear, as it nearly did in the reduced-pool quantum experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, adaptive QUBO masks can replace static variable-density sampling in Cartesian MRI without requiring new non-Cartesian readouts.
  • Because the formulation is solver-independent, gains measured with parallel tempering can transfer to any future quantum-annealing backend with enough qubits, connectivity, and precision to handle the full candidate pool.
  • The reported advantage is concentrated at low sampling rates and moderate noise, so the practical payoff is in high-acceleration scans where static masks lose the most fidelity.
  • The paper's own timing breakdown suggests mask optimization need not be the bottleneck, but real-time scanner integration still requires asynchronous, warm-started solvers and a precomputed fallback batch.
  • Clinically, the same masks must be tested prospectively on human data across varied anatomy, contrast, field strength, and coil arrays before translation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The signal-energy proxy driving the adaptive field could be swapped for an information-based or learned criterion through the same QUBO interface; the paper itself notes this is a drop-in replacement, leaving the extension open.
  • If the adaptive field is the true source of the gain, the method's value is not tied to quantum hardware; a testable extension is to compare the full method against a version whose adaptive field is replaced by random noise while keeping the QUBO structure intact.
  • The same batch-selection QUBO could be adapted to non-Cartesian trajectories or to jointly optimize sampling across time frames in dynamic imaging, where k-space energy shifts over time, although neither is explored here.
  • Because hyperparameters were grid-searched on the same test phantoms, an honest reader should treat the reported margin as an upper bound until validated on held-out anatomies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Quantum Adaptive Sampling (QAS), a sequential Cartesian k-space sampling method that selects batches of phase-encode lines by minimizing a QUBO/Ising objective. The objective (Eqs. 25-26) combines a static center-bias attraction h_static, an adaptive field h_adaptive derived from log-compressed, smoothed L2 norms of previously acquired k-space lines, an exploration bonus, and pairwise repulsion terms, with a quadratic cardinality penalty. The authors evaluate QAS retrospectively on simulated 8-coil brain phantoms at 128^3 and 256^3 resolution, 20% and 10% sampling, and several input SNR levels, using parallel tempering as the QUBO solver and SENSE-TV ADMM reconstruction. They report that QAS improves PSNR, SSIM, NMSE, and HFEN relative to static Cartesian strategies such as variable-density Poisson-disc sampling. A reduced-pool implementation using D-Wave's hybrid solver gives reconstruction quality comparable to variable-density Poisson-disc sampling, which the authors correctly interpret as a feasibility demonstration rather than quantum advantage. The main claimed contribution is the adaptive QUBO framework rather than a quantum speedup.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: it provides a concrete, solver-independent QUBO encoding for adaptive Cartesian MRI sampling, with pseudocode for the feedback loop, and it is appropriately cautious about quantum advantage. The strengths include the explicit algorithmic description, the fair-budget comparison across multiple resolutions, accelerations, and noise levels, and the transparent discussion of clinical translation and hardware limitations. However, the paper's headline result depends on the adaptive field being the cause of the improvement, and that causal claim is not tested by any ablation. The empirical evidence is also weakened by the absence of error bars, the likely tuning of many free parameters on the same test phantoms, and an internally inconsistent D-Wave table. These issues are fixable within the scope of a revision, but they are load-bearing for the current claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Mathematical Formulation, Eqs. (25)-(26); Algorithm 4; Results] The central claim is that signal-energy feedback drives the improvement, but no experiment isolates the adaptive field. The objective is H_total = Σ J_ij s_i s_j − Σ (h_static + w_a h_adaptive + b_i) s_i + P(Σ s_i − M)^2, and Algorithm 4 updates h_adaptive from measured k-space energy. The main comparisons in Tables 1-2 and Figs. 1-3 use the full objective, so an improvement over VDP could come from the static center bias, the repulsion term, the exploration bonus, or the QUBO joint selection, without any contribution from h_adaptive. I request an explicit ablation: set w_a = 0 (or freeze/randomize h_adaptive) while keeping all other terms identical, and compare against the full QAS. A static QUBO mask with the same center-bias, repulsion, and exploration terms should also be included. Without this, the title and abstract's 'adaptive' claim is untested.
  2. [Methods, hyperparameter selection; Tables 1-2] The methods state that 'grid search algorithm was applied to determine the suitable parameters' and specify α, γ, and β, but not the ranges, the number of trials, or whether tuning was performed on the same 128^3 and 256^3 phantoms used for evaluation. The method also has additional free parameters (w_a, η, σ_g, c_b, τ, P) whose values are not given. If the same phantoms were used for both tuning and evaluation, the reported gains are optimism-biased and cannot be assumed to generalize to unseen anatomies. Please provide a data-split description (e.g., tune on one phantom/contrast, test on a held-out phantom), report the chosen parameter values, and include a sensitivity analysis.
  3. [Results, Tables 1-2 and Figs. 1-2] All quantitative results appear to be single realizations. Since mask generation, noise injection, and parallel tempering are stochastic, and some reported differences are small (e.g., Table 2, R=10: QAS PSNR 27.57 vs VDP 26.93; SSIM 0.8542 vs 0.8280), the comparison needs repeated runs with mean ± standard deviation or confidence intervals and, where appropriate, significance tests. Without error bars, the robustness of the claimed improvement, especially at R=10 on the 128^3 phantom, is not established.
  4. [D'Wave Experiments and results, Table 3] Table 3 is internally inconsistent. For the same reference phantom, Eqs. (30) and (32) imply that PSNR and NMSE should be monotonically related: lower NMSE should give higher PSNR. The noiseless row reports QAS NMSE=0.0533 with PSNR=29.653 and VDP NMSE=0.2259 with PSNR=29.845, so the method with higher error has higher PSNR. At 20 dB input SNR, QAS NMSE increases from 0.0533 to 0.2258 while PSNR slightly increases from 29.653 to 29.852, which is impossible under the stated definitions unless the reference energy or dynamic range changed between rows. In addition, the D-Wave experiment uses a Shepp-Logan phantom, whereas the main experiments use an MPRAGE brain phantom, so the reduced-pool result is not directly comparable to Tables 1-2. These issues must be corrected and the table recomputed before the D-Wave feasibility claim can be interpreted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Mathematical Formulation; Methods] Eq. (26) and Eq. (27) are identical; one should be removed. Algorithm 3's title contains the stray text 'candidate pool 3.0.1'; this appears to be a formatting artifact.
  2. [Table 3] The column header uses 'NRMSE' while the text and Eq. (30) define 'NMSE'. Please use consistent terminology.
  3. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that 'images can be recovered from randomly undersampled data,' but the proposed method is deterministic and adaptive, not random. This sentence should be rephrased to match the actual method.
  4. [Algorithm 4] The 'decreasing center bias' branch is described only verbally. An explicit formula for how h_static decreases with sampling progress, and the role of τ, would improve reproducibility.
  5. [General] There is no code or data availability statement. Given the number of free parameters and the empirical nature of the claims, releasing the mask-generation and reconstruction code would substantially strengthen the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Reported QAS gains are partly in-sample: grid-searched hyperparameters were evaluated on the same phantoms, and no ablation isolates the adaptive field; the central QUBO derivation itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Mathematical Formulation and Methods: grid-search paragraph following Eqs. (12)-(27), Algorithm 1; results in Tables 1-2]
    "We used the anisotropic distance in equation 13 between the phase-encode and partition directions with α=2 and γ=2.5. Additionally, we use the adaptive field with tanh suppression as in 23 with β=2. Grid search (12) (22) algorithm was applied to determine the suitable parameters. We use thresholding here to prevent the solver from over-exploiting the high-energy central k-space region. Therefore, the algorithm uses a linearly decreasing center bias for the attractive field. For the experiments, a threshold (τ) of 85% of the total number of k-space lines to be sampled."

    The paper does not report a train/validation/test split. The same 128^3 and 256^3 phantoms are used both for the grid-search selection of QAS's hyperparameters (α, γ, β, τ, and the coefficients in Eqs. (18)-(25)) and for the headline performance comparisons in Tables 1-2. Consequently, the reported QAS improvements over VDP, radial, spiral, etc. are not out-of-sample predictions: they are in-sample evaluations of a configuration whose free parameters were fitted to the same evaluation data. The static baselines were not given a comparable tuning procedure, so part of the measured margin is an artifact of in-sample fitting rather than a generalizable property of the adaptive QUBO framework.

full rationale

The core QUBO/Ising construction in Eqs. (12)-(27) is self-contained and is not derived circularly: the static center bias, pairwise repulsion, exploration bonus, and adaptive signal-energy field are defined from explicit formulas, and no parameter is defined in terms of the final reconstruction metrics. The paper makes an empirical comparison rather than a first-principles derivation, and the D-Wave reduced-pool experiment is explicitly reported as only comparable to VDP, with stated hardware limitations. The main circularity concern is evaluation-level: grid-search hyperparameter tuning on the same test phantoms makes a portion of the QAS advantage a fitted result, which matches the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern. The paper also never ablates the adaptive field (e.g., w_a=0), so the attribution of the gains to adaptation is untested; however, that is a missing control rather than a definitional circularity, so it does not by itself raise the score further. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. Overall, the central derivation is independent, but the headline improvement is partly in-sample and therefore receives a moderate circularity score of 4 rather than 0-2.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is a heuristic objective combining known MRI sampling heuristics. The only new construction is the specific QUBO encoding and sequential adaptive update, which requires several hand-tuned hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • anisotropy α = 2 (grid-searched)
    Weights partition vs phase-encode distance in Eq. (13); tuned via grid search.
  • decay exponent γ = 2.5
    Controls repulsion falloff in Eqs. (14)/(16).
  • tanh suppression β = 2
    Suppresses adaptive field in Eq. (23).
  • adaptive weight w_a = not stated
    Scales adaptive field in Eq. (25); grid-searched.
  • exploration strength η = not stated
    Scales exploration bonus in Eq. (24).
  • center bias c_b = not stated
    Sets σ in Eq. (20), controls central preference.
  • Gaussian smoothing width σ_g = not stated
    Used for diffusing adaptive signal map before normalization.
  • threshold τ = 0.85 × total
    Switches from constant to decreasing center bias in Algorithm 4.
  • cardinality penalty P = not stated
    Strength of quadratic penalty enforcing exactly M lines.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math QUBO/Ising equivalence and convergence of parallel tempering (Eqs. 7-11)
    PT converges to the stationary distribution; standard results are invoked without proof.
  • domain assumption Signal energy in k-space correlates with reconstruction information
    Adaptive field uses L2 norm of acquired lines as proxy; unvalidated.
  • domain assumption Static central k-space bias is beneficial for SENSE-TV reconstruction
    Central k-space contains most low-frequency energy; standard in CS MRI but heuristic.
  • domain assumption Pairwise distance-based repulsion enforces incoherence sufficient for CS
    Repulsion promotes dispersion; Poisson-disc sampling uses a similar assumption.
  • domain assumption Analytical birdcage coil sensitivity map approximates physical 8-coil array
    All experiments use simulated CSM; real arrays differ in coupling and noise.
  • domain assumption Simulated brain phantom (MPRAGE digital image) is representative for MRI
    Single phantom per resolution; no real data or anatomical diversity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Adaptive Sensing for Accelerated MRI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6Z5L4ALK

@misc{pith2026260721737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Adaptive Sensing for Accelerated MRI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6Z5L4ALK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21737}
}
read the original abstract

Compressed sensing accelerates MRI by reconstructing images from undersampled k-space, but performance depends strongly on sampling distribution. We propose an adaptive framework that selects Cartesian phase-encode lines sequentially using a fixed-cardinality quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation. The objective combines a preference for central k-space, signal-energy information from previously acquired measurements, and pairwise terms that encourage spatially dispersed sampling. The formulation is compatible with classical annealing and quantum-annealing hardware. Retrospective experiments used simulated eight-coil 3D MRI data; QUBO problems were solved with parallel tempering, and images were reconstructed with SENSE and total-variation regularization. At 20% and 10% sampling, the proposed method improved PSNR, SSIM, NMSE, and HFEN compared with the evaluated static Cartesian strategies, including variable-density Poisson-disc sampling, although gains varied with resolution, acceleration, and noise level. In a reduced-pool experiment, a D-Wave quantum-classical hybrid solver achieved reconstruction quality comparable to variable-density Poisson-disc sampling, demonstrating feasibility on current quantum optimization infrastructure. While these results do not establish quantum computational advantage, the direct QUBO representation provides a practical framework for adaptive MRI sampling and may benefit from future advances in quantum-annealing hardware. Prospective scanner validation and systematic quantum-classical benchmarking remain necessary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison across Sampling Methods under Noisy Situations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison across Sampling Methods under Noisy Situations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of reconstructed images for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction Comparison between QAS and VDP, which are the top two performers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: R = 10: Comparison of QAS using quantum annealing and VDP using 8-coil SENSE-TV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: R = 10 (10% sampling): Comparison of QAS using quantum annealing and VDP using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kirkpatrick and C

    S. Kirkpatrick and C. D. Gelatt and M. P. Vecchi , title =. Science , volume =. 1983 , doi =. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.220.4598.671 , abstract =

    doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671 1983

  2. [2]

    Baron and Ethan M.I

    Nicholas Dwork and Corey A. Baron and Ethan M.I. Johnson and Daniel O'Connor and John M. Pauly and Peder E.Z. Larson , keywords =. Fast variable density Poisson-disc sample generation with directional variation for compressed sensing in MRI , journal =. 2021 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2020.11.012 , url =

    doi:10.1016/j.mri.2020.11.012 2021

  3. [3]

    Magnetic Resonance Imaging , volume =

    Fast variable density Poisson-disc sample generation with directional variation for compressed sensing in MRI , author =. Magnetic Resonance Imaging , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  4. [4]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , volume =

    Levine, Evan and Daniel, Bruce and Vasanawala, Shreyas and Hargreaves, Brian and Saranathan, Manojkumar , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26254 , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mrm.26254 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.26254

  5. [5]

    2000 , eprint =

    Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution , author =. 2000 , eprint =

    2000

  6. [6]

    Physical Review A , year =

    Compressed sensing enhanced by a quantum approximate optimization algorithm , author =. Physical Review A , year =

  7. [7]

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging , year =

    Golden-Angle Radial MRI: Basics, Advances, and Applications , author =. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging , year =

  8. [8]

    Pauly , title =

    Michael Lustig, David Donoho, John M. Pauly , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Imaging , year =

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    , title =

    Pineda, L., Basu, S., Romero, A., Calandra, R., & Drozdzal, M. , title =. In Lecture notes in computer science , year =

  2. [10]

    and Weiger, Markus and Scheidegger, Markus B

    Pruessmann, Klaas P. and Weiger, Markus and Scheidegger, Markus B. and Boesiger, Peter , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , volume =

  3. [11]

    , journal =

    Grover, Lov K. , journal =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  4. [12]

    Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 1997 , doi =

    1997

  5. [13]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Deutsch, David and Jozsa, Richard , title =. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , volume =. 1992 , month =. doi:10.1098/rspa.1992.0167 , url =

    1992

  6. [15]

    A numerical implementation of

    Apolloni, B and Cesa-Bianchi, N and De Falco, D. A numerical implementation of. 1988

    1988

  7. [16]

    Kirkpatrick and C

    S. Kirkpatrick and C. D. Gelatt and M. P. Vecchi , title =. Science , volume =. 1983 , doi =

    1983

  8. [17]

    Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model , author =. Phys. Rev. E , volume =. 1998 , publisher =

    1998

  9. [18]

    K., & Manning, W

    Sodickson, D. K., & Manning, W. J. , title =. Magnetic resonance in medicine , year =

  10. [19]

    SENSE reconstruction with nonlocal TV regularization , year=

    Liang, Dong and Wang, Haifeng and Ying, Leslie , booktitle=. SENSE reconstruction with nonlocal TV regularization , year=. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5335343 , ISSN=

    2009

  11. [20]

    and Deem, Michael W

    Earl, David J. and Deem, Michael W. , year=. Parallel tempering: Theory, applications, and new perspectives , volume=. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , publisher=. doi:10.1039/b509983h , number=

    doi

  12. [21]

    Replica Monte Carlo Simulation of Spin-Glasses , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 1986 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2607 , url =

    1986 doi

  13. [22]

    Rozada, Ignacio and Aramon, Maliheh and Machta, Jonathan and Katzgraber, Helmut G. , year=. Effects of setting temperatures in the parallel tempering Monte Carlo algorithm , volume=. Physical Review E , publisher=. doi:10.1103/physreve.100.043311 , number=

    doi

  14. [23]

    MR Image Reconstruction From Highly Undersampled k-Space Data by Dictionary Learning , year=

    Ravishankar, Saiprasad and Bresler, Yoram , journal=. MR Image Reconstruction From Highly Undersampled k-Space Data by Dictionary Learning , year=

  15. [24]

    and Peper, Eva S

    Gottwald, Lukas M. and Peper, Eva S. and Zhang, Qinwei and Coolen, Bram F. and Strijkers, Gustav J. and Nederveen, Aart J. and van Ooij, Pim , title =. NMR in Biomedicine , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4255 , year =

    doi

  16. [25]

    and Haldar, Justin P

    Bliesener, Yannick and Lingala, Sajan G. and Haldar, Justin P. and Nayak, Krishna S. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28024 , year =

    doi

  17. [26]

    P. P. Ippolito , title =. Springer , year =

  18. [27]

    2021 , eprint=

    Search Algorithms for Automated Hyper-Parameter Tuning , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  19. [28]

    and Weiger, Markus and Scheidegger, Markus B

    Pruessmann, Klaas P. and Weiger, Markus and Scheidegger, Markus B. and Boesiger, Peter , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199911)42:5<952::AID-MRM16>3.0.CO;2-S , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.10...

    doi

  20. [29]

    , title =

    Shor, Peter W. , title =. SIAM Journal on Computing , volume =. 1997 , doi =. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795293172 , abstract =

    1997 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.